Summarizing E-Learning Research and Best Practices for Higher Education. Curt Bonk, Indiana University (and CourseShare.com) [email protected] http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk. Ok, What Does the Research Say???. Tons of Recent Research. Not much of it ...is any good.
Curt Bonk, Indiana University
Ok, What Does the Research Say??? Higher Education
Not much of it
...is any good...
Research since 1928 shows that DL students perform as well as their counterparts in a traditional classroom setting.
Per: Russell, 1999, The No Significant Difference Phenomenon (5th Edition), NCSU, based on 355 research reports.
- Only 36% have objective learning measures
- Only 45% have comparison groups
1. > 50 percent of messages were reactive.
2. Only around 10 percent were truly interactive.
3. Most messages factual stmts or opinions
4. Many also contained questions or requests.
5. Frequent participators more reactive than low.
6. Interactive messages more opinions & humor.
7. More self-disclosure, involvement, & belonging.
8. Attracted to fun, open, frank, helpful, supportive environments.
Used Garrison’s five-stage critical thinking model
1. Share ideas,
2. Discovery of Idea Inconsistencies,
3. Negotiate Meaning and Areas of Agreement,
4. Test and Modify,
5. Phrase Agreements
(4) Initiating activities,
(5) Providing feedback,
(6) Sharing knowledge
The Focus Should Shift from Higher Educationwhether it makes a difference to where it makes a difference
One common finding—online courses need sensible pedagogical approaches that allow students opportunities to communicate their learning
Bonk’s Research Higher Education
1. Link to peers and mentors.
2. Expand and link to alternative resources.
3. Involve in case-based reasoning.
4. Connect students in field to the class.
5. Provide e-mail assistance.
6. Bring experts to teach at any time.
7. Provide exam preparation.
8. Foster small group work.
9. Engage in electronic discussions & writing.
10. Structure electronic role play.
Average results for prior to TITLE (TITLE):
Research on Starter-Wrapper Technique Higher Education
Surface Processing Higher Education
making judgments without justification,
stating that one shares ideas or opinions already stated,
repeating what has been said
asking irrelevant questions
i.e., fragmented, narrow, and somewhat trite.
linked facts and ideas,
offered new elements of information,
discussed advantages and disadvantages of a situation,
made judgments that were supported by examples and/or justification.
i.e., more integrated, weighty, and refreshing.Surface vs. Deep Posts
Tasks Overwhelm Higher Education
Confused on Web
Too Nice Due to Limited Share History
Hard not to preach
Too much data
Communities not easy to form
Train and be clear
Structure time/dates due
Develop roles and controversies
Train to back up claims
Students take lead role
Use Email Pals; set times and amounts
Embed Informal/SocialE-LearningProblems and Solutions
Shy open up online Higher Education
Minimal off task
Delayed collab more rich than real time; discussion extends
Students can generate lots of info
Excited to Publish
Use async conferencing
Create social tasks
Use Async for debates; Sync for help, office hours (use both to reflect)
Structure generation and force reflection/comment
Ask PermissionE-LearningBenefits and Implications
Any Online Teaching Experiences? Higher Education
Any Obstacles to Teaching Online? Higher Education
Administrative: Higher Education
“Lack of admin vision.”
“Lack of incentive from admin and the fact that they do not understand the time needed.”
“Lack of system support.”
“Little recognition that this is valuable.”
“Rapacious U intellectual property policy.”
“Unclear univ. policies concerning int property.”
“Difficulty in performing lab experiments online.”
“Lack of appropriate models for pedagogy.”
“More ideas than time to implement.”
“Not enough time to correct online assign.”
“People need sleep; Web spins forever.”Problems Faced
What Instructional Activities are Needed? Higher Education
Little or no feedback given Higher Education
Kept narrow focus of what was relevant
Created tangential discussions
Only used “ultimate” deadlines
Provided regular qual/quant feedback
Participated as peer
Allowed perspective sharing
Tied discussion to grades, other assns.
Used incremental deadlines
Dennen’s Research on Nine Online Courses (sociology, history, communications, writing, library science, technology, counseling)
Poor Instructors Good Instructors
Level 1: Course Marketing/Syllabi via the Web
Level 2: Web Resource for Student Exploration
Level 3: Publish Student-Gen Web Resources
Level 4: Course Resources on the Web
Level 5: Repurpose Web Resources for Others
Level 6: Web Component is Substantive & Graded
Level 7: Graded Activities Extend Beyond Class
Level 8: Entire Web Course for Resident Students
Level 9: Entire Web Course for Offsite Students
Level 10: Course within Programmatic Initiative
Instructor to Student: syllabus, notes, feedback
to Instructor: Course resources, syllabi, notes
to Practitioner: Tutorials, articles, listservs
Student to Student: Intros, sample work, debates
to Instructor: Voting, tests, papers, evals.
to Practitioner: Web links, resumes
Practitioner to Student:Internships, jobs, fieldtrips
to Instructor: Opinion surveys, fdbk, listservs
to Practitioner: Forums, listservs
1. Safe Lrng Community Higher Education
2. Foster Engagement
3. Give Choice
4. Facilitate Learning
5. Offer Feedback
6. Apprentice Learning
7. Use Recursive Tasks
8. Use Writing & Reflection
9. Build On Web Links
10. Be Clear & Prompt Help
11. Evaluate Dimensionally
12. Personalize in Future4. Reflect on Environment:How to Be Learner-Centered on the Web (Bonk & Cummings, 1998)
Twelve forms of electronic learning mentoring and assistance(Bonk & Kim, 1998; Tharp, 1993; Bonk et al., 2001)
“Some frustrated Blackboard users who say the company is too slow in responding to technical problems with its course-management software have formed an independent users’ group to help one another and to press the company to improve.”
(Jeffrey Young, Nov. 2, 2001, Chronicle of Higher Ed)
“…innate propensity to engage one’s interests and exercise one’s capabilities, and, in doing so, to seek out and master optimal challenges
(i.e., it emerges from needs, inner strivings, and personal curiosity for growth)
See: Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. NY: Plenum Press.
“…is motivation that arises from external contingencies.” (i.e., students who act to get high grades, win a trophy, comply with a deadline—means-to-an-end motivation)
See Johnmarshall Reeve (1996). Motivating Others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Motivational Terms? Higher EducationSee Johnmarshall Reeve (1996). Motivating Others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. (UW-Milwaukee)
1. Introductions: require not only that students introduce themselves, but also that they find and respond to two classmates who have something in common (Serves dual purpose of setting tone and having students learn to use the tool)
2. Peer Interviews: Have learners interview each other via e-mail and then post introductions for each other.
3. Eight Nouns Activity:
1. Introduce self using 8 nouns
2. Explain why choose each noun
3. Comment on 1-2 peer postings
4. Coffee House Expectations
1. Have everyone post 2-3 course expectations
2. Instructor summarizes and comments on how they might be met
(or make public commitments of how they will fit into busy schedules!)
Have students share how they will fit the coursework into their busy schedules.
10. Scavenger Hunt
1. Create a 20-30 item online scavenger hunt (e.g., finding information on the Web)
2. Post scores
11. Two Truths, One Lie
1. Require minimum # of peer comments and give guidance (e.g., they should do…)
2. Peer Feedback Through Templates—give templates to complete peer evaluations.
3. Have e-papers contest(s)
2. Feedback: Higher EducationC. Self-Testing and Self-Assessments(Giving Exams in the Chat Room!, Janet Marta, NW Missouri State Univ, Syllabus, January 2002)
(David Brown, Syllabus, January 2002, p. 23)
1. Ask students to vote on issue before class (anonymously or send directly to the instructor)
2. Instructor pulls out minority pt of view
3. Discuss with majority pt of view
4. Repoll students after class
(Note: Delphi or Timed Disclosure Technique: anomymous input till a due date
and then post results and
reconsider until consensus
Rick Kulp, IBM, 1999)
Alternative: Pool field interviews
(Note: method akin to storytelling)
5. Choice: A. Multiple Topics Higher Education
Alternative: Facilitator-Starter-Wrapper (Alexander, 2001)
Instead of starting discussion, student acts as moderator or questioner to push student thinking and give feedback
(Alternatives: Email Interviews with experts
Assignments with expert reviews)
A. Role Play Personalities
B. Assume Persona of Scholar
In effect, critical friends do not slide over weaknesses, but confront them kindly and directly.
(Alternative: Have a series of press conferences at the end of small group projects; one for each group)
(e.g., Team or Class White Paper, Bus Plan, Study Guide, Glossary, Journal, Model Exam Answers)
1. Tone/Climate: Ice Breakers, Peer Sharing
2. Feedback: Self-Tests, Reading Reactions
3. Engagement: Q’ing, Polling, Voting
4. Meaningfulness: Job/Field Reflections, Cases
5. Choice: Topical Discussions, Starter-Wrapper
6. Variety: Brainstorming, Roundrobins
7. Curiosity: Seances, Electronic Guests/Mentors
8. Tension: Role Play, Debates, Controversy
9. Interactive: E-Pals, Symposia, Expert Panels
10. Goal Driven: Group PS, Jigsaw, Gallery Tours
Pick One…??? (circle one)